ID: 2707y

Mr. M. Iwase
General Manager
Technical Administration Dept.
Shizuoka Works
Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
500, Kitawaki
Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken
Japan

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of August 22, l990, to Erika Z. Jones, formerly the Chief Counsel, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. l08.

You state that section S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv) of Standard No. l08 requires that the horizontal indicator of a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) shall be capable of re-calibration over a movement of +/- 2.5 degrees, and you would like us to confirm our interpretation of the method and procedures of recalibration on the vehicle after repair from accident damage. You say that NHTSA "interprets as follows: If the dimensional specifications of vehicle body and appropriate instruction are described in shop manual, re-calibration could be addressed." (55 FR pages 4425 and 4426, February 8, l990). You stated that Koito did not believe that this method is practicable.

We believe that you have misunderstood the Federal Register notice. The notice was the agency's response to petitions for reconsideration of Section S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv). Subsection (iv) states that the horizontal aim indicator of a VHAD "shall be capable of recalibration over a movement of +/- 2.5 degrees . . . to accommodate any adjustment necessary for recalibrating the indicator after vehicle repair from accident damage." Ford Motor Company had commented that this requirement was unduly restrictive. It asked NHTSA to allow the option of a VHAD with only a vertical aim indicator if the headlamps as installed met a suggested horizontal aim specification of 0.0 +0.8/-0.4 degree.

NHTSA, believing in the importance of horizontal aim capablility, found that a principal area of concern was that circumstances could occur during the life of the vehicle that could adversely affect maintenance of correct horizontal aim, and that without horizontal aim capability, it was unclear that the accuracy of horizontal aim could be assured after repair of accident damage. It was at that point that NHTSA observed:

"Manufacturers could address this concern by providing dimensional data for precise structural alignment of the vehicle in shop manuals and appropriate instructions for performing the necessary and potentially extensive parts replacement and vehicle reconstruction requisite for correct horizontal aim."

However, NHTSA went on to say that this concern was already met by subsection (iv) which requires the horizontal aim indicator to be capable of recalibration after crash damage or vehicle repair. NHTSA denied Ford's petition. Thus, it did not propose or adopt a requirement, as Ford wanted, that a manufacturer could provide instructions in place of a VHAD with a horizontal aim indicator. The existing requirement of subsection (iv) remained unchanged. Thus, it is the manufacturer's decision on how to provide for recalibration after crash damage and vehicle repair. Therefore, as long as a VHAD complies with subsection (iv), a manufacturer may provide whatever re-calibration instructions it deems appropriate.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:l0/3/90

ID: 2796o

Mr. Scott A. Snyder
117 South Keesey Street
York, PA 17402

Dear Mr. Snyder:

This is in reply to your letter of March l0, l988, to the Department's regional office in Philadelphia, asking for a response concerning "ornamental lighting." In your opinion "a few extra lights on the side and rear of a vehicle would help other people see you better while driving at night."

The agency is interested in the role that vehicle conspicuity plays in accidents and accident avoidance. With reference to motorcycles, we have amended our motor vehicle lighting standard to prescribe performance characteristics for headlamp modulation. We were prepared to amend the standard to require the activation of motorcycle headlamps when the ignition was turned on (but did not do so when we learned that almost all motorcycles were being wired to operate in that fashion). Some time ago we asked the public to comment on ways of increasing the conspicuity of large vehicles as our research had indicated that reflective tape applied to the side and rear of wide trucks and trailers might lessen crashes and crash severity, and our research still continues in this area. Most importantly we adopted the center highmounted stop lamp for passenger cars because of the ability it demonstrated in test fleets to reduce the frequency of rear end impacts.

The type of lights of which you speak are referred to as "presence" lamps (as contrasted with "signal" lamps), and the agency over the years has acted with respect to all motor vehicles by requiring them to be equipped with side marker lamps, and by increasing the lens area for stop lamps. As the Federal safety standards are by statutory definition "minimum" safety standards, the requirement that there be two taillamps, for example, does not mean that a manufacturer may not add two more if it wishes, or any lighting device not covered by the standard. The sole restriction is that lighting devices added by the manufacturer or dealer that are in excess of the minimum must not impair the effectiveness of the equipment required by the standard. This could happen, for example, if a fog lamp (not covered by the standard) was of an intensity and located so that it masked an adjacent front turn signal. With respect to nighttime operation, the critical issue would appear to be that additional lighting devices not create glare to oncoming and following drivers.

The owner of the vehicle is not under a similar Federal restriction, and may personally add such additional lighting devices as seems desirable, subject to the laws of the States where the vehicle is registered and/or driven. However, the owner may not have these devices installed by a motor vehicle dealer or repair business if the result is to render wholly or partially inoperative any of the vehicle's original lamps or reflectors.

We appreciate your suggestion for improving motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:8/ll/88

ID: nht90-4.32

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 3, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase --General Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Shizuoka Works, Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-22-90 from M. Iwase to E.Z. Jones (OCC 5135); Also attached to diagram entitled Re-Calibration Procedures in The Shops (graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1990, to Erika Z. Jones, formerly the Chief Counsel, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 108.

You state that section S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv) of Standard No. 108 requires that the horizontal indicator of a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) shall be capable of re-calibration over a movement of +/- 2.5 degrees, and you would like us to confirm our in terpretation of the method and procedures of recalibration on the vehicle after repair from accident damage. You say that NHTSA "interprets as follows: If the dimensional specifications of vehicle body and appropriate instruction are described in shop m anual, re-calibration could be addressed." (55 FR pages 4425 and 4426, February 8, 1990). You stated that Koito did not believe that this method is practicable.

We believe that you have misunderstood the Federal Register notice. The notice was the agency's response to petitions for reconsideration of Section S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv). Subsection (iv) states that the horizontal aim indicator of a VHAD "shall be capabl e of recalibration over a movement of +/- 2.5 degrees . . . to accommodate any adjustment necessary for recalibrating the indicator after vehicle repair from accident damage." Ford Motor Company had commented that this requirement was unduly restrictive. It asked NHTSA to allow the option of a VHAD with only a vertical aim indicator if the headlamps as installed met a suggested horizontal aim specification of 0.0 +0.8/-0.4 degree.

NHTSA, believing in the importance of horizontal aim capablility, found that a principal area of concern was that circumstances could occur during the life of the vehicle that could adversely affect maintenance of correct horizontal aim, and that without horizontal aim capability, it was unclear that the accuracy of horizontal aim could be assured after repair of accident damage. It was at that point that NHTSA observed:

"Manufacturers could address this concern by providing dimensional data for precise structural alignment of the vehicle in shop manuals and appropriate instructions for performing the necessary and potentially extensive parts replacement and vehicle reco nstruction requisite for correct horizontal aim." However, NHTSA went on to say that this concern was already met by subsection (iv) which requires the horizontal aim indicator to be capable of recalibration after crash damage or vehicle repair. NHTSA denied

Ford's petition. Thus, it did not propose or adopt a requirement, as Ford wanted, that a manufacturer could provide instructions in place of a VHAD with a horizontal aim indicator. The existing requirement of subsection (iv) remained unchanged. Thus, it is the manufacturer's decision on how to provide for recalibration after crash damage and vehicle repair. Therefore, as long as a VHAD complies with subsection (iv), a manufacturer may provide whatever re-calibration instructions it deems appropriate.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: GF007935

Terence McBride, Manager
City of Memphis Motor Vehicle Inspection Bureau
590 Washington Avenue
Memphis, TN 38015

Dear Mr. McBride:

This responds to your e-mail of November 4, 2003, to George Feygin of my staff. In your e-mail, you inform us that the State of Tennessee has passed a bill (No. HB1819/SB1765) permitting oscillating stop lamps on motorcycles. You ask whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) permit oscillating stop lamps on motorcycles. As discussed below, the answer is no.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements prior to the initial sale of the vehicle.

The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment in motorcycles is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. The relevant section of that standard reads as follows:

"S5.5.10      The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:
(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;
(c) A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;
(d) All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning" [emphasis added].

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 mandates that all lamps be steady burning, unless otherwise permitted. In the present case, stop lamps do not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10 (a) through (c). Accordingly, motorcycle stop lamps must be steady burning and cannot be oscillating.

With respect to Federal preemption of State laws, 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1) provides in pertinent part:

"Preemption. When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter"

This means that, under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), a State cannot authorize oscillating motorcycle stop lamps since the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard prohibits such lighting devices.

We further note that installation of a non-steady burning lamp by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business after the initial sale is subject to the restrictions of 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Depending on the circumstances, installation of a non-steady burning lamp after the initial sale of the motorcycle could be viewed as a violation of this "make inoperative" provision.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/14/04

ID: nht76-3.2

DATE: 07/16/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Jeep Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to Jeep Corporation's March 9, 1976, petition for rulemaking as supplemented by its letter of April 1, 1976. The petition requested an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, that would add the following sentence at the end of S7.1.6(b):

For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work-performing accessories.

The supplement to the petition included a list of 15 examples of such work-performing accessories. The amendment would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to remove these accessories before performing compliance testing pursuant to the standard.

In Section 108 of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, (15 U.S.C. 1392 note), Congress directed that the fuel system integrity standard take effect in the form in which it had been most recently published. Conditions for amending the standard were specified in Section 108(b) as follows:

Amendment or Repeal of Standard. -- The Secretary may amend the standard described in subsection (a) in order to correct technical errors in the standard, and may amend or repeal such standard if he determines such amendment or repeal will not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety.

The practical result of the amendment requested by Jeep would be that certain vehicles would not, as is presently specified, be required to conform to the standard in the form in which they are actually delivered to purchasers and used on the highways. In fact, the presence of work-performing accessories could seriously degrade a vehicle's performance in the standard's barrier crash tests. We therefore cannot conclude that the requested amendment "will not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety." Furthermore, the amendment goes beyond the mere correction of technical errors in the standard. Consequently, Jeep's petition must be and is hereby denied.

Despite this denial, however, the NHTSA interprets the term "unloaded vehicle weight" in a manner that provides some of the relief that Jeep has requested. The term is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as follows:

'Unloaded vehicle weight' means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.

The "weight of a vehicle" includes the weight of those accessories that are installed on a vehicle before delivery and are not ordinarily removed. Among such accessories are the following: air bag suspension systems

draw bars

headlamp and radiator protectors

helper-springs

hitches

pintle hooks

power take-offs

push bumpers

step bumpers and side steps

tire carriers

wreckers

The weight of those accessories that are ordinarily removed from a vehicle when they are not in use, however, is not included in the "weight of a vehicle". Consequently, accessories in this latter group would be removed by the NHTSA prior to testing for conformity to Standard No. 301-75. Among these are the following:

snow plows

spreaders

tow bars

Categorization of winches, the remaining accessory that you have listed, depends on the nature of the particular winch. One that is generally removed only when its presence interferes with other vehicle functions would be included in the evaluation of "unloaded vehicle weight". A portable winch that is ordinarily removed after use, however, would not be included in that evaluation.

SINCERELY,

Jeep Corporation

April 1, 1976

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

On March 9, 1976 the Jeep Corporation petitioned the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for rulemaking to exempt work-performing accessories from the test requirements of FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, as the standard applies to multi-purpose vehicles and light trucks. This letter transmits additional information to supplement our March 9 petition.

It has occurred to us that a summary of the types of available work-performing accessories referenced in our petition might be of benefit to you in your efforts to evaluate the merits of the Jeep petition. We, therefore, submit the following list of work-performing accessories, or work-related accessories, for your information and review:

Air bag suspension systems

Draw bars

Headlamp and radiator protectors

Helper springs

Hitches

Pintle hooks

Power take-offs

Push bumpers

Snow plows

Spreaders

Step bumpers and side steps

Tire carriers

Tow bars

Winches

Wreckers

In addition, we have attached copies of the booklet "Jeep Vehicle Special Equipment and Jeep Vehicle Accessories Catalog" which includes illustrations of the type of accessories and devices discussed above as well as descriptions of other factory-approved equipment and accessories that are available on these unique vehicles.

We request your prompt and favorable acceptance of this petition since less than five months remain before FMVSS No. 301 becomes effective as applied to MPV's and light trucks.

George E. Brown Executive Director - Vehicle Emissions & Safety

ATTACHMENTS Jeep Corporation

March 9, 1976

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

RE: Petition For Rulemaking Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity

On October 16, 1975, Jeep Corporation submitted a petition to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" so that work-performing accessories would not be included. That petition was subsequently denied (your letter N40-30) on the grounds that the NHTSA has adopted a policy of evaluating potential dynamic testing problems with heavy or protruding accessories on a "standard-by-standard" basis.

In accord with that stated NHTSA policy, Jeep Corporation, herewith, submits the attached petition to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, so that the test conditions specified by the standard do not include the work-performing accessories used on trucks and multi-purpose vehicles.

George E. Brown Executive Director Vehicle Emissions and Safety

March 9, 1976

PETITION TO AMEND FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD (49 CFR PART 301) FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY

Pursuant to Section 124 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Jeep Corporation petitions the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to undertake rulemaking to amend Motor Vehicle Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, so that the test conditions specified by the standard do not include work-performing accessories for trucks and multipurpose vehicles. Thus, the test conditions for Standard No. 301 would then be consistent in this respect with those for Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion.

The Jeep Corporation requests the Administrator's consideration of this petition for the amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, for the following reasons:

Currently, the Test Conditions of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, Are Not Consistent with Those of Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion

In the preamble to the proposal for Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, Docket No. 74-21; Notice 2, the Administrator stated:

"Finally, the NHTSA is continuing to promote compatibility and economy in barrier crash testing by adopting vehicle loading and dummy restraint requirements in Standard No. 219 identical to those set out in proposed amendments to Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, 49 CFR 571.301 (40 FR 17036, April 16, 1975)."

Jeep Corporation fully supports the Administrator's efforts to promote compatibility and economy in barrier testing; however, the requirements for Standard No. 219 and 301 do not provide the desired compatibility or economy.

Section 7.7b of Standard No. 219 referring to the test loading and dummy requirements for multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses states:

"For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work performing accessories."

Standard No. 301 does not provide for the exemption of work-performing accessories and, therefore, is not compatible with Standard No. 219 and thus requires clarification regarding the loading conditions for barrier testing.

Barrier Tests Including Work-Performing Accessories Would Not Be Representative of Normal Production Vehicles

Multi-purpose vehicles, because of their nature, are used in many ways with equipment not typical of normal passenger car usage. Barrier tests involving work-performing accessories would not be representative of most production vehicles. For example, the barrier test results of a truck with a snow plow on its front and carrying a salt spreader on its rear should not be used to depict base vehicles because of the possible protection offered to the base vehicle by its work-performing devices.

Excessive Barrier Test Requirements May Cause Some Accessories Specifically Engineered for Jeep Vehicles to be Removed From the Marketplace

Jeep Corporation offers a full range of work-performing accessories ranging from snow plows and push plates to power winches and wrecker assemblies. Such accessories are highly desirable to customers who want to more fully utilize the multi-purpose features of their Jeep vehicles or who want to utilize the capabilities of any class of vehicle for recreational or work purposes.

These accessories, which are marketed as Jeep Special Equipment, are specifically designed to be compatible with Jeep vehicles, thereby requiring a minimum of vehicle modification, and are offered either as factory-installed or dealer add-on equipment. Aftermarket universal-type accessories may not be so readily adaptable to Jeep vehicles resulting in major vehicle modifications which may compromise the safety performance of the original vehicle.

Marketing of these engineered accessories may not be possible, however, if the dynamic testing procedures of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, differ from the test procedures specified for other standard such as Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, and require multi-purpose vehicles to be tested with a myriad of special equipment accessories. Programs to assure compliance to any Federal Safety Standard specifying barrier testing with all possible equipment combinations would create a testing and financial burden which Jeep Corporation could not bear. The end result would be the withdrawal from the marketplace of certain original equipment, manufacturer-installed accessories or dealer-installed, manufacturer-approved accessories which may not be in the best interest of public safety.

Summary

In recognition of the above arguments, Jeep Corporation petitions the Administrator to amend Section 7.1.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, by adding the sentence underlined here:

". . . same. Each dummy shall be restrained only by means that are installed in the vehicle for protection at its seating position. For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work-performing accessories."

Jeep Corporation submits that such rulemaking is both in the public interest and in the best interest of vehicle safety.

ID: 0004

The Honorable John A. Boehner
Member, United States House of
Representatives
5617 Liberty Fairfield Road
Hamilton, Ohio 45011

Dear Congressman Boehner:

This responds to your letter of April 7, 1994, to the Department of Transportation (DOT) on behalf of your constituents, John Cail Sr. and James Lipps of Eaton.

Messrs. Cail and Lipps have requested your assistance in obtaining DOT "approval and color code designation" for their "Life Lites" system. This is a stop lamp system consisting of two 18-inch long 1/2-inch wide devices intended to be mounted on the front of a vehicle alongside the windshield pillars, to emit a light of either purple or coral. The system is activated with the rear stop lamps when the brakes are applied, and it is intended to warn observers to the front of a vehicle that the vehicle is braking. It "could be mounted to most existing vehicles and could be readily incorporated into new car designs."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)is the component of DOT that is responsible for motor vehicle safety under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act does not authorize NHTSA to "approve" or disapprove safety inventions such as Life Lites. We do advise, however, whether such inventions are permitted under the Act and applicable regulations such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The fact that a device may be permitted under NHTSA laws must not be interpreted as our approval or endorsement of it.

The standard that applies to motor vehicle lighting is Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Life Lites emitting either color may be installed as original equipment by the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer at the time a vehicle is sold to its first purchaser provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of any of the frontal lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 such as headlamps and turn signals. The materials you enclosed show a color closeup newspaper photo of a Life Lite

in operation; its relatively low output does not appear sufficient to impair headlamp effectiveness. There would be concern, however, if it were to distract attention from an operating turn signal and, in this sense, impair its effectiveness. However, the responsibility for determining whether supplemental original lighting equipment impairs the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment rests with the installer, and NHTSA will not question this determination unless it appears clearly erroneous.

Life Lites that are sold in the aftermarket and intended for vehicles in use, are prohibited by the Act if their installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business "knowingly renders inoperative, in whole or part" the required motor vehicle lighting equipment. Though the words are different between the Act and Standard No. 108, in this instance we would equate partial inoperability with impairment of effectiveness and the same considerations would apply.

However, the Act does not prohibit vehicle owners under any circumstances from installing Life Lites themselves if they are able to do so. But the legality of Life Lites of either color and under any scenario remains subject to the laws of any State in which the device is operated. We are unable to advise your constituents of the laws of the individual States, and suggest that they write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Washington Office

re:108#VSA d:6/2/94

ID: 1982-2.29

DATE: 08/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Harris Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 1, 1982, to Mr. Vinson of this office with regard to your "new motorcycle lighting system" and asking about possible conflicts with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your device is an "aftermarket accessory" light which may be mounted to a motorcycle helmet, and which is integrated by a cord into the motorcycle's headlighting system, providing an auxiliary beam of light in conjunction with the beam of light projected by the main headlamp.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is the standard on vehicle lighting and lighting equipment while Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, is the other standard of relevance. Neither standard directly addresses an aftermarket device such as yours and as your lamp is intended to be installed by the helmet owner, it does not appear to conflict with any other regulatory prohibition of this agency. It would, therefore, be subject to regulation by the individual States in which the device is worn.

We see nothing in your correspondence that legally qualifies as "sensitive proprietary information", and our interpretation will be given its usual circulation.

SINCERELY,

Harris Enterprises

Taylor Vincent Chief Counsel DOT/NHTSA

July 1, 1982

Dear Sir;

Enclosed you will find a description of a new motorcycle lighting system and a copy of the utility patent protecting it.

At the suggestion of Dr. Carl Clark, NHTSA inventor contact, at our meeting of 4/15/82 at DOT, I am contacting you in order to clarify any possible areas of conflict with existing Federal regulations that this system presents.

One possible conflict that was discussed concerned Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 218 with regard to motorcycle helmets. Paragraph S5.5 states that "Rigid projections outside any helmet's shell shall be limited to those required for operation of essential accessories, and shall not protrude more than 0.19 inch." As evidenced by the enclosed descriptive material. the system clearly employs a detachable helmet mounted light source whose housing projects substancially beyond the 0.19 inch limit.

This helmet light is an aftermarket accessory which is detachably installed by the operator by means of Velcro- like, 3M Dual Lock self adhesive fasteners. This mounting system is to be engineered so as to allow the helmet light accessory to shear away from the helmet surface upon application of a force substantially less than that which might cause injury. Indeed, the only somewhat permanent projections applied to the helmet itself are the three self adhesive strips of Dual Lock fastener which engage three complimentary strips on the underside of the helmet light. These strips don't project more than 0.19 inch.

As there are not currently any standards directly regarding a helmet mounted light as described, which integrates with the standard lighting system, and may be mediated by a photo electric dimming system to prevent the blinding of oncoming drivers, I would appreciate your opinion as to whether standard headlamp regulations apply.

Dr. Clark has seen the product and is most aware of the properties it exhibits. Any questions you may have may be directed either to Mr. Clark or this office. Your opinions on the above points are of significant commercial interest to us, and your earliest consideration would be appreciated. Please treat everything exclusive of the patent itself as sensitive proprietary information.

William R. Harris, Jr.

ID: 2345y

Mr. Kent D. Smith
12249 S. 1565 E.
Draper, UT 84020

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in reply to your letter of January 26, l990, to the agency with respect to a safety lighting device. You have asked for our recommendations regarding this invention.

The problem addressed by your invention is "that vehicles need some way of signaling following drivers if the headlamps of their vehicles are blinding you." Your solution is to install a button that activates the backup lamps and extinguishes them in a matter of a second or less. One alternative would be to operate only a single backup lamp, and another, to activate only the license plate lamp. This would provide a warning to the following driver.

The agency is concerned with glare, but its investigation of the phenomenon indicates that there are two types: discomfort glare, and disabling glare. Although it is certainly an annoyance, the glare produced by a headlamp shining into a rear view mirror is discomfort glare. In our judgment, a vehicle driver looking into the mirror will not suffer disabling glare so that he is unable to discern vehicles approaching, or pedestrians in the roadway; most vehicles are equipped with manual "day/night" mirrors which may be easily operated in the event of discomfort. Equipment manufacturers have already addressed the problem by providing rear-view mirrors that have a photoelectric cell that dips them when a certain level of light intensity is reached. In summary, the agency does not believe that there is a nationwide safety problem requiring it to mandate the use of your device on motor vehicles as new vehicle equipment.

As an aftermarket item which a dealer could offer a new-car purchaser, its installation would be subject to the general prohibition in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 that supplemental lighting devices shall not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. l08 requires. The question to be answered, therefore, is whether the device would impair the effectiveness of the backup lamps, or other rear lighting devices. The problem here is the necessity of rear lighting devices to provide clear and unambiguous signals and messages to following drivers. Anytime a lighting device does not provide a cue to which a following driver is accustomed, the potential for confusion arises. The driving public is unfamiliar with the sudden, though temporary, activation of the backup lamp, at normal driving speeds, or a modification in intensity of the license plate lamp. Without a substantial nationwide public education campaign, the signal imparted by your device is not likely to be understood by a following driver, and might distract him from the signals of the other rear lighting devices. In this sense, we believe that your device might impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. l08 does allow.

You have also noted the State prohibitions against use of backup lamps when the car is going in a forward direction. Even if the agency concluded that the device was permissible and would not cause impairment, the States are not precluded from enacting and enforcing their own standards on the use of lighting systems.

You may be interested to know that two letters to the Editor of The New York Times have appeared on this issue in the last month which suggest the use of existing lighting equipment to signal following drivers that their upper beams are on. I enclose these letters for your consideration.

I am sorry that we cannot be more encouraging in our remarks, but we do appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref: 108 d:3/22/90

ID: nht79-1.47

DATE: 10/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret the delay in responding to your letter of July 19, 1979, which requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays. You asked whether placing the turn signal symbol on the turn signal control shown in your illustration so that the arrows are vertical would comply with the standard.

The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 of the standard requires that the turn signal symbol appear perceptually upright to the driver. The purpose of that requirement is to ensure quick and accurate indentification of the vehicle controls. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of Safety Standard 101-80. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle.

Since the symbols required by Safety Standard 101-80 were selected in order to facilitate international standardization and harmonization, it is important that they not be significantly altered from one vehicle to another. This is particularly important in order to ensure that drivers become familiar with the meaning of various symbols including the turn signal symbol.

However, Safety Standard 101-80 does permit manufacturers to supplement the symbols designated in Table 1 of the standard with additional words or symbols for the purpose of clarity. Therefore, nothing in the standard would prevent your company from adding additional symbols, such as curved thinner arrows next to the turn signal symbol, to indicate mode of operation.

SINCERELY,

9/11/79 - SECOND REQUEST

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

July 19, 1979

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

Subject: Request for Interpretation Turn Signal Control Identification FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays

Mack Trucks, Inc. will be introducing a new truck model later this year. The vehicle has been designed to comply with the current requirements of FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays. The attached photograph illustrates the instrument panel layout in a prototype vehicle. Since this vehicle is assembled in France, several features differ from current U.S. vehicle designs.

The turn signal control is located on the instrument panel to the lower left of the speedometer. This is a two function control in that horizontal movement switches the headlamps from low to high beam, while vertical movement activates the turn signals.

FMVSS 101-80 requires that this turn signal control be identified by a specified symbol and that the symbol appear perceptually upright to the driver. As we interpret the regulation, the symbol must be rotated 90 degrees from the position shown in the photograph in order to comply with the requirement. However, we feel that this could be confusing because the operation of the turn signal control is vertical. Although we realize that the symbol is there to indicate the function, not the operation, we question whether a driver will understand what the symbol indicates. We believe it is more appropriate to orient the symbol as shown in the photograph so as to reduce the possibility of confusion. (Note: Please disregard the headlamp symbol next to the turn signal symbol on the control since it will not be there on production vehicles.)

We would appreciate your comments and/or recommendations on the orientation of the turn signal symbol as soon as possible since production of these vehicles is scheduled to begin September 1, 1979.

Thomas F. Brown Executive Engineer-Vehicle Regulations and Standards

ATTACH.

bcc: L. F. DONNELLY; L. F. KASACZUN; E. PASCUAL; S. ROBSON; C. D. TREXLER

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht94-3.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 25, 1994 Est

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John A. Boehner -- Member, United State House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/7/94 from John A. Boehner to Jackie Lowey, and letter dated 3/25/94 from James Ackley, Carol Baumhauer and Krista D. Subler to John A. Boehner

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 7, 1994, to the, Department of Transportation (DOT) on behalf of your constituents, John Cail Sr. and James Lipps of Eaton.

Messrs. Cail and Lipps have requested your assistance in obtaining DOT "approval and color code designation" for their "Life Lites" system. This is a stop lamp system consisting of two 18-inch long 1/2-inch wide devices intended to be mounted on the fron t of a vehicle alongside the windshield pillars, to emit a light of either purple or coral. The system is activated with the rear stop lamps when the brakes are applied, and it is intended to warn observers to the front of a vehicle that the vehicle is b raking. It "could be mounted to most existing vehicles and could be readily incorporated into new car designs."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component of DOT that is responsible for motor vehicle safety under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act does not authorize NHTSA to "approve" or disapprove safety in ventions such as Life Lites. We do advise, however, whether such inventions are permitted under the Act and applicable regulations such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The fact that a device may be permitted under NHTSA laws must not be in terpreted as our approval or endorsement of it.

The standard that applies to motor vehicle lighting is Standard No. 108 LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT. Life Lites emitting either color may be installed as original equipment by the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer at the time a vehicle is sold to its first purchaser provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of any of the frontal lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 such as headlamps and turn signals. The materials you enclosed show a color closeup newspaper photo of a Life Lite in operation; its relatively low output does not appear sufficient to impair headlamp effectiveness. There would be concern, however, if it were to distract attention from an operating turn signal and, in this sense, impair its effe ctiveness. However, the responsibility for determining whether supplemental original lighting equipment impairs the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment rests with the installer, and NHTSA will not question this determination unless it appear s clearly erroneous.

Life Lites that are sold in the aftermarket and intended for vehicles in use, are prohibited by the Act if their installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business "knowingly renders

inoperative, in whole or part" the required motor vehicle lighting equipment. Though the words are different between the Act and Standard No. 108, in this instance we would equate partial inoperability with impairment of effectiveness and the same consid erations would apply.

However, the Act does not prohibit vehicle owners under any circumstances from installing Life Lites themselves if they are able to do so. But the legality of Life Lites of either color and under any scenario remains subject to the laws of any State in w hich the device is operated. We are unable to advise your constituents of the laws of the individual States, and suggest that they write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 2220 3.